You're a sad poster, so ignorant. But let's give you a little help.
Obama didn't say 'adding a lot to the debt is unpatriotic'.
He criticized Bush doing it. He didn't criticize FDR doing it to pay for WWII. Or himself.
So, what's the difference betwee Bush debt and Obama debt?
One, what they debt went for - Bush debt for cutting taxes for the rich, and making our problem with too high a concentration of wealth even worse, a war of choice with Iraq...
While Obama's debt has gone for things better for the country, mostly - things like 'stimulus' which have helped the economy not continue crashing.
Which brings us to the difference that Bush turned a surplus into massive debt. Obama came into office with the biggest economic crash since the Great Depression.
Those are quite different. Bush's is bad for adding debt - Keynesian policy calls for paying down debt in the good cycles - while Obama's debt is pretty much forced.
Obama is investing money in things like alternative energy that will help the country's economy. Republicans are mainly about 'shift wealth to the top, cut spending for people'.
Not just government spending, all spending private as well, by attacking unions to help businesses pay less in labor costs.
You can't hand Obama a disaster and demand him not to do what's needed to help with it, the government stimulating the economy.
If you want to compare the parties, start with how Democrats took the big defecits they got from Republicans Reagan and Bush 41, and reduced them to 0 with Clinton.
It was Republicans since Reagan who took tiny deficits and made them big for every president since.
Republicans figured out the political game - run on 'talking' low deficits when out of power; when in power use huge deficits to take money for the rich and increase their power rewarding their donors e.g., Medicare Part D, and to force cuts in programs for the people that the people wouldn't otherwise accept, because 'we can't afford them'.
So, did I waste my time with posting to you?
Facebook
Twitter